* Yahoo faces SEC probe over massive data breaches that focuses on whether company appropriately disclosed them to investors - CNBC, citing DJ
Last night I saw the sci-fi film "Arrival". (Spoiler alert.) At the beginning of the film, 12 alien spacecraft visit Earth, and there are attempts to communicate with the aliens. The film mostly takes place in Montana, where one of the ships is stationed, but there are occasional references to China, where a nationalistic general threatens to attack one of the spacecraft if they refuse to leave Chinese territory. In the end, the Chinese leader turns out to be a hero, and ushers in a new era of international cooperation and peace. It's one of those films that have the hokey message (common in sci-fi) of how from the perspective of 20,000 miles up the Earth is a single fragile planet and that nationalism is foolish. (Actually, the film is much better than I made it sound.) It felt slightly surreal seeing this film one day after the Trump inauguration, where the President struck an "America First" theme. Even more so, when I read the Financial Times this morning: China's president launched a robust defence of globalisation and free trade on Tuesday, drawing a line between himself and Donald Trump just three days before the US president-elect's inaugural address in Washington. "The problems troubling the world are not caused by globalisation," Xi Jinping said in an address at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "They are not the inevitable outcome of globalisation." The spectacle of a Chinese Communist party leader in the spiritual home of capitalism defending the liberal economic order against the dangers of protectionism from a new US president underscored the upheaval in global affairs brought about by the election of Donald Trump. "Countries should view their own interest in the broader context and refrain from pursuing their own interests at the expense of others," Mr Xi said without mentioning Mr Trump by name. "We should not retreat into the harbour whenever we encounter a storm or we will never reach the opposite shore." There was no need to mention Trump by name: "As the Chinese saying goes: People with petty shrewdness attend to trivial matters while people with great vision attend to governance of institutions," Mr Xi said. Of course real life is not like a Hollywood film, and China falls far short of Xi's lofty rhetoric, as for instance when it ignored the International Court of Justice's ruling in favor of the Philippines' sovereignty over some disputed islands. And America still has a far more open economy (and society) than China. Even so, one can't help noticing that the recent trajectories of these two countries are quite different from each other. China is gradually opening up its economy, while the US seems determined to move in the opposite direction. Mr Xi argued that China's economic growth had global benefits, with the world's second-largest economy expected to import $8tn worth of goods and services over the next five years. He added that Chinese outbound investment over the same period would reach $750bn, exceeding expected foreign direct investments of $600bn. As he was speaking, China's State Council announced it would further open the country's mining, infrastructure, services and technology sectors to foreign investment. "China will keep its doors wide open," Mr Xi said. "We hope that other countries will also keep their doors open to Chinese investors and maintain a level playing field for us." Despite recent trends, I predict that Trump's trade policies will not be successful, and that the current wave of protectionism will peter out after a few years. Still, it certainly feels like we are in a completely different world from what I grew up in. I never would have imagined a American inaugural address full of highly charged nationalistic rhetoric, followed a day later by the Chinese leader at Davos, vying with Angela Merkel for the title "leading advocate of global economic liberalization". I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode. (Maybe I am.) (1 COMMENTS)
Conservation investors are hungry for investments that fit their interests. But they feel there aren’t enough suitable opportunities, finds a new report.
The next time you’re ready to buy a stock, ask yourself... “Is this company a price taker or a price maker?”
Here is a look at ETFs that currently offer attractive income opportunities. The high-yield candidates included in this list meet two sets of criteria. First, each of these funds is deemed to be a high yield prospect because it boasts an annual dividend yield upwards of 5%. Second, each of these ETFs also boasts over $100 million in total assets under management to help steer investors away from less established funds. As always, investors of all experience levels are advised to use stop-loss orders and practice disciplined profit-taking techniques.
The arrangement has worried ethics experts, especially because the advisers may sidestep conflict-of-interest rules.
Hollie Fagan, Head of RIA & Retail Investor Platforms at BlackRock speaks with Julie Cooling, Founder and CEO, RIA Channel about the changing investment landscape and helping advisors to build better client portfolios.
Automation and minimum wage hikes will help Amazon crush retail icons and kill millions of traditional sales jobs and cost investors in retail icons millions of dollars in losses.
“Gloom, Boom & Doom Report” Editor Marc Faber appeared on the FOX Business Network to discuss his outlook for the markets and how investors should adjust their portfolios. When host Stuart... [[ This is a content summary Only. Please Visit http://www.marcfabernews.com for the full story, >>>>]]
What investors should watch the week of January 23-27.
Investors Business Daily Reports Clinton Foundation Is Shutting Down http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-clinton-foundation-is-dead-but-the-case-against-hillary-isnt/ The post Investors Business Daily Reports Clinton Foundation Is Shutting Down appeared first on PaulCraigRoberts.org.
Presidential inaugurations are big moments for the U.S. and its investors. In this week’s chart, we’re looking at how the market typically reacts to a new commander in chief.
Here is a look at the 25 best and 25 worst ETFs from the past trading week. Traders can use this list to find prospective candidates that have deviated too far from their longer-term trends, thereby serving as potential starting points for those looking to take on either short or long positions. Likewise, traders can also use this list to spot potential trend reversal opportunities that may offer a generous risk/reward. As always, investors of all experience levels are advised to use stop-loss orders and practice disciplined profit-taking techniques.
● Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America By David Horowitz Summary via publisher (Humanix) Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election was more than a historic upset. It was the beginning of a major political, economic, and social revolution that will change America — and the world. One of the nation’s foremost conservative […]
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters Oliver Stuenkel, Fundação Getúlio Vargas Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20 exemplifies a phenomenon that is likely to shape global politics for years to come: the rise of the strongman. The term is broadly used to describe law-and-order candidates with authoritarian tendencies who weaken institutions and concentrate power in the executive. As leaders, they tend to reject pluralism (the idea that political power is distributed among many institutions, both governmental and nongovernmental). Instead, they often claim to be the exclusive representatives of "the people". Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Russia's Vladimir Putin and Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro are classic strongmen. Calling their opponents "unpatriotic" and implying they are guided by "foreign interests", these politicians consistently articulate a moral form of anti-pluralism. Strongmen thrive on polarisation: once in office, all three of these world leaders have described their opposition as illegitimate, immoral and "enemies of the people"; Maduro even called those who voted against him traitors. Does this remind you of any recently triumphant American politician? Hint: in November 2016 Donald Trump referred to "millions of illegal voters" to explain why he lost the popular vote. Of course, some strongmen are more authoritarian than others, and a firm institutional framework can help limit leaders' room for manoeuvre. Is Trump in the populist big leagues, with the likes of Putin or Erdoğan? We'll find out soon. A year of democratic challenges This year will see strongmen in power in Washington, Budapest, Moscow, Ankara, Manila and Caracas. What does this situation, unprecedented in recent history, mean for global politics? Above all, it symbolises a profound crisis of democracy, with a real risk of contagion. In their most extreme form, as in Venezuela or Russia, such leaders no longer organise free elections: they're unnecessary because those presidents already know what "the people" really want. But strongmen can also be electorally competitive when voters feel that traditional political institutions aren't meeting expectations, as we've seen in the Philippines. The Brexit and Trump populist successes did not take place in small countries with limited visibility. Rather, they occurred in the world's two most mature democracies, which -- despite many missteps -- have historically played an important role in the flourishing of democracy across the world. So one consequence of a populist winning the White House will be a decline in American soft power. In fact, Trump's election has already had a negative affect in this area. The US is less able to attract and co-opt support, rather than to coerce by force. This makes the case for democracy elsewhere in the world much harder. This will be particularly true if Trump moves forward with some of his campaign promises to discriminate against people of Muslim faith. The stronger anti-Islam currents grow in Western democracies, the less the US, among others, can criticise governments in China, Myanmar and elsewhere for how they treat their religious minorities. Under Trump, the US can also be expected to spend less money on international human rights and democracy groups. One may rightly criticise US foreign policy on many fronts, but we must recognise the massive US government investment in NGOs, journalism and opposition groups living under dictatorships around the world - to the tune of US$10 billion per year over the past decade. Trump, by contrast, has made clear that he thinks little of defending or promoting democracy abroad, and has spoken highly of strongmen such as Putin, Hungarian President Viktor Orbán and Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte. Both stances will reduce pressure on authoritarian governments around the world. Endangered: truth, plurality and stability The global resurgence of strongmen has coincided with the rise of the "post-truth" era. This trend threatens to undermine democracies' key advantage over authoritarian regimes: democracies make ample use of available data to determine public policy and enjoy the benefit of a relatively transparent debate to elect competent, prepared leaders. They are noisy but ultimately moderate and stability-producing. The proliferation of fake news also creates an unprecedented challenge. News organisations, struggling to adapt to the digital era, lack funds for investigative journalism (particularly on the local level). Meanwhile, social media is contributing to social fragmentation; today, few news sources speak to large portions of society. Bad for democracy, good for strongmen. Pixabay The result is an environment marked by a high degree of distrust - easy fodder for post-truth strongmen like Trump and Putin to exploit. Democracies also tend to embrace diversity and globalisation, with their capacity to integrate migrants from all over the world. In most western democracies, the percentage of the population born abroad has consistently been around 10% in recent years; in Canada or Australia it reaches 20%. The strongman's governing model, on the other hand, requires a degree of polarisation and fear. Both Trump and Putin consistently point to dangers from abroad, be it "bad hombres" from Mexico (Trump), or foreign-funded NGOs (Putin). Most observers now expect a US retreat from trade agreements and even security alliances, further reducing the United States' role in global affairs. Democracies are now seen as creating more economic unpredictability than authoritarian regimes. That would have been impossible to foresee a few years back. And considering that pollsters failed to predict both Brexit and Trump, markets will be more volatile ahead of elections. That's bad for the market: investors need, above all, predictability. So we can expect negative economic consequences during 2017, year of the strongman. The longer such a scenario prevails in democracies around the world, the more endangered democratic governance becomes - morally, strategically and economically. Trump and Putin: a match made in heaven? Trump doesn't know Putin, as he famously declared in an October 2016 debate. But even if they become friends, it's no guarantee that US-Russia relations will be stable. The notion that personal friendships between strongmen produce stability is spurious: it depends on interpersonal chemistry over institutional agreements - and the latter are far more durable. Turkey's Erdoğan was so close to Syria's Bashar Al-Assad that their families vacationed together. This did not prevent the two from falling out and producing one of the Middle East's most profound enmities. Right now, it seems that Russia will benefit greatly from the US' political sea change, and Trump has spoken positively of Putin while barely acknowledging Russian interference in the election. But one could quickly "dump" the other. Politicians usually know how to separate policy-making from personal feelings. Trump and Putin, on the other hand, vain and thin-skinned, are unlikely to compromise or backtrack if their pride is threatened. Such unprecedented uncertainty bodes badly for growth prospects in 2017. But strongmen in power in Washington and Moscow bodes well for future populists. France, where Marine Le Pen is a strong contender for the presidency, may be the test case of whether 2017 really is the year of the strongman (or strongwoman). If she wins, it could spell the end of the European Union. As voters go to the polls in France and Germany later this year, the stakes have never been higher. Oliver Stuenkel, Assistant Professor of International Relations, Fundação Getúlio Vargas This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Investors have a hidden risk ahead of them. Even as the market sits near all-time highs, the DOL’s (Department of Labor) new Fiduciary Rule threatens to upend the investing industry, and in the extreme, perhaps destroy many active manager’s businesses. This is especially true in sectors that have a lot of retail participation like the energy sector. The fundamental issue with the new DOL rule is that it forces advisors to act as fiduciaries, which in turn will lead many advisors to try and play it safe by only recommending the lowest…
Following the surprising decline in lighting manufacturer Acuity Brands (AYI), clean energy investors may be wondering what is ahead for the industry. The answer is that while the industry is seeing significant change, there are some serious challenges ahead as well. For an industry that has remained mostly unchanged throughout the twentieth century, lighting has seen a remarkable amount of turmoil and transition since 2000. Incandescent bulbs have been the standard technology in most lighting applications for many years, but two new technologies…
Potential and actual FDI spillovers in global value chains : the role of foreign investor characteristics, absorptive capacity and transmission channels
Using newly collected survey data on direct supplier-multinational linkages in Chile, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Mozambique, Swaziland, and Vietnam, this paper first evaluates whether foreign investors differ from domestic producers in terms of their potential to generate positive spillovers for local suppliers. It finds that foreign firms outperform domestic producers on several indicators, but have fewer linkages with the local economy and offer less supplier assistance, resulting in offsetting effects on the spillover potential. The paper also studies the relationship between foreign investor characteristics and linkages with the local economy as well as assistance extended to local suppliers. It finds that foreign investor characteristics matter for both. The paper also examines the role of suppliers' absorptive capacities in determining the intensity of their linkages with multinationals. The results indicate that several supplier characteristics matter, but these effects also depend on the length of the supplier relationship. Finally, the paper assesses whether assistance or requirements from a multinational influence spillovers on suppliers. The results confirm the existence of positive effects of assistance (including technical audits, joint product development, and technology licensing) on foreign direct investment spillovers, while the analysis finds no evidence of demand effects.